A Dose of Human Rights: An Antidote to the Criminal Prohibition of Cannabis for Medical Use?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates whether statutory or constitutional bills of rights have the potential to allow cannabis to be legally available, on human rights grounds, for persons who require its use for medical purposes. While successful human rights challenges to the absolute prohibition of cannabis over the past decade have been mounted by medical users and suppliers in Canada to secure legal access to marijuana for medical purposes, similar human rights challenges in the United States and the United Kingdom have so far been unsuccessful. After reviewing these challenges, it is concluded that the passage of human rights laws, whether in the form of statutory or constitutional bills of rights, does not necessarily guarantee that the medical use of marijuana will be legalized in Australia. However, this article also recognizes that human rights discourse may nevertheless contribute to the legitimization of the medical use of cannabis, which could eventually lead to the legislative exemption of medical users of cannabis from the general provisions of criminal drug laws.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".